What happened to the Dasa thread?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Mmmmm, I am not convinced, if we are going to allow other forms of hate speech,
'Your God is akin to Hitler', then it appears to me to be hypocritical to chastise Dasa for
his hate speech. In fact, he merely sought to bring terrible acts of persecution to the
forums attention, perpetrated by Muslims on a christian minority, it happens.

I've defended JWs when they have been attacked.
But it is legitimate to question, attack your beliefs.

I would question a Muslim about his belief, perhaps even ridicule
his ideas but never incite hatred against Islam or condemn a whole people.

BIG DIFFERENCE

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I've defended JWs when they have been attacked.
But it is legitimate to question, attack your beliefs.

I would question a Muslim about his belief, perhaps even ridicule
his ideas but never incite hatred against Islam or condemn a whole people.

BIG DIFFERENCE

did dasa incite hatred against Islam in his post, all I remember was a series of cases
where Muslims had perpetrated acts of violence against others, in this case, a Christian
minority.

After Dasa's other anti-Muslim posts, he could've just referred back to them or just put them(Muslims) down in an off-handed, maybe jokish manner. But he had to draw it out. Still bad taste, but he would avoided a forum ban. When you keep repeating the same hate speech making point after point that is just the same as some other threads it validates removal.
Mind you I believe I had a few posts in the thread so I kinda feel like my efforts were wasted.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
After Dasa's other anti-Muslim posts, he could've just referred back to them or just put them(Muslims) down in an off-handed, maybe jokish manner. But he had to draw it out. Still bad taste, but he would avoided a forum ban. When you keep repeating the same hate speech making point after point that is just the same as some other threads it validates rem ...[text shortened]... ind you I believe I had a few posts in the thread so I kinda feel like my efforts were wasted.

did he incite hatred against Muslims in this latest thread or are Wolfgang and FMF
referring to a past post?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether you consider God as real or otherwise is not the point, is it, free speech is
being stifled. Its hypocritical of you and all those who objected to dasas post to allow
certain forms of hate speech and report those which you support. Its an excellent
comparison.

There is a difference...

Imaginary "G"od suffers no one iota from any negative comments targeted specifically at it (a] because it doesn't exist, and b] it supposedly bigger and badder than all of us humans put together)- the majority of peaceful Muslims on the other hand have to put with violent & abusive chit day in and day out because of the simple minded majority of non-Muslims who smear their characters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones...
but words can destroy not just me, but my friends, my family, my peers, my pets, and my way of life.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i think your ideas are good i just needed another's perspective as i cannot see
clearly myself, by that i mean, i cannot see the distinction between dasas and some of
the other posts, this is further compounded by the excuses that have been proffered by
those who objected to his post, it really is a quandary to be honest.

I think we each have our own thresholds of acceptability.

For some, it might be that it "offends OUR belief. And it offends it in such a way that the established authority (in this case, RHP) can be used to show our disapproval."

In the present case, it is being used to show that, as some allege, threatening the adherents of a particular religion is unacceptable, while, as others allege, offending the adherents of a (different) particular religion is acceptable. Or are you alleging that "God is like "H****r" is a threat?

I'm not saying it's not a threat. After all, the Allies treated Hitler as a threat, and considered the bombing of Germany to be a justifiable reaction.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
did he incite hatred against Muslims in this latest thread or are Wolfgang and FMF
referring to a past post?

It seemed like a blanket hate on the whole Muslim religion.
Now you and I know that there are always a few bad apples but we dont throw out the whole batch.
I like the fact that you are seeming to stand up for free speech, but this is repitive hate speech covering a whole religion with millions of followers.
I doubt Dasa has read or comprehended any sufi literature because then he might realize how much they have in common with his own vedic views.

Originally posted by Agerg
There is a difference...

Imaginary "G"od suffers no one iota from any negative comments targeted specifically at it (a] because it doesn't exist, and b] it supposedly bigger and badder than all of us humans put together)- the majority of peaceful Muslims on the other hand have to put with violent & abusive chit day in and day out because of the simple mind ...[text shortened]... ds can destroy not just me, but my friends, my family, my peers, my pets, and my way of life.

Yes, God is impervious to criticism.

But consider this logic:

"G*d is like Hi+ler."

"We justifiably killed Hi+ler's subjects to stop him."

"Therefore we can ____________________________."

Fill in the blank.

This may be why robbie brings up the comparison.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
did he incite hatred against Muslims in this latest thread or are Wolfgang and FMF
referring to a past post?

I did not see the post that was removed and I have not referenced it.

I was speaking generally and in response to your post.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If God allowed even Satan himself to enter in among the angelic hordes and give an
account of his activities, i think that says it all about Gods magnanimity and mankind's
small-mindedness. It was construed that the post was racist, Islam is not a race, it
could not therefore have been racist. I want to know, from those people who alerted it,
on what basis were they offended.

"It was construed that the post was racist, Islam is not a race, it
could not therefore have been racist. "

ive already answered this, maybe you missed it - all the examples dasa give mentioned pakistani men. he was referring to crimes committed against christians living in pakistan. this constitutes as race hatred.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes, God is impervious to criticism.

But consider this logic:

"G*d is like Hi+ler."

"We justifiably killed Hi+ler's subjects to stop him."

"Therefore we can ____________________________."

Fill in the blank.

This may be why robbie brings up the comparison.

I say that argument is incomplete...

1) "G"od is like Hitler
2) We justifiably killed Hitlers' subjects to stop him [because otherwise, upon his orders, they would have killed us]
3) Therefore [assuming we can demonstrate a) they are definitely out to kill us, b) that they are (or they believe they are) under direct orders from "G"od, and c) that we can "stop "G"od"] we can _________________________Reveal Hidden Content

I say Robbie Carrobie still has his work cut out on this one.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Exactly how did I compare you to Hitler? If I did, I apologize. Heated discussion.

Apology accepted. No point in dragging it out then.

Originally posted by Agerg
That argument is incomplete...

1) "G"od is like Hitler
2) We justifiably killed Hitlers' subjects to stop him [because otherwise, upon his orders, they would have killed us]
3) Therefore [assuming we can demonstrate they are definitely out to kill us, and that they are (or they believe they are) under direct orders from "God"] we can _____________________ ...[text shortened]... lled in the blank[/hidden]

I say Robbie Carrobie still has his work cut out on this one.

That's fine, I'm just trying to advance the conversation. I would note that killing was not Hitler's only objective, in fact it would more likely be to kill some millions of undesirables and bring the others, many many millions more, productively under the control of his ideology. This fact doesn't diminish what you said. There are people who feel that this outcome, ideological control, is as real a threat with respect to Muslims, and Christians, as it was WRT Hi+ler. So they say, violent actions are justified.

The question is, does comparison pf G*d to Hi+ler reasonably constitute an unacceptable threat that is of a comparable magnitude to Dasa's statements about Muslims? It may be that people who are members of a particular religion may have reason to think so.

Originally posted by JS357
That's fine, I'm just trying to advance the conversation. I would note that killing was not Hitler's only objective, in fact it would more likely be to kill some millions of undesirables and bring the others, many many millions more, productively under the control of his ideology. This fact doesn't diminish what you said. There are people who feel that this ou It may be that people who are members of a particular religion may have reason to think so.

No the comparison does not represent a threat.

Stating that a god/set of beliefs/ect are bad doesn't say anything about what to do about it.

In the same way that improving humanities health and prosperity by improving the gene pool is
a good idea, doing it by the methods espoused and enacted by the Nazis and other 'eugenicists'
of the 20th century is a really really bad idea.

If you and your partner are carriers of a genetic disease (on a recessive gene say) and you have
children by invetro-fertilisation and specifically choose an egg/sperm that don't have the bad genes
to make sure that neither they, nor their children, develop the disease you are engaging in eugenics.
And we applaud this.

If you go around deciding people have some defect that makes them unsuitable to reproduce and
forcefully sterilise them you are also engaging in eugenics but you are doing something evil and should
be stopped and locked in prison.

Eugenics is not necessarily good or bad, it depends on HOW and WHY you do it and advocate doing it

Thus in the same way that you can't jump from someone advocating eugenics as a remedy for various
ills we have as a society to the methods they intend to employ, you can't jump from claims that the bible
god is evil to how someone thinks bible god's followers should be dealt with.


I hold that all faith* based beliefs are morally wrong and dangerous and that the bible god as described
is a despicable monster.

However that doesn't in any way mean that I am threatening those who believe in or worship the bible god.

Although I may very well be offending them. Free speech and free societies must be able to allow and tolerate
offence. The ability to offend is a right that must be firmly held onto and defended. Threatening however is a
different matter.

This is because I absolutely do not hold with or advocate for violence against believers for believing or as
a mechanism of trying to stop them believing.

Both because this is morally wrong and also because it simply doesn't work.

I advocate (and practice) debating and discussing the issues and promoting reasoning and rationality as an
antidote to faith based beliefs.

Threatening comes not from criticizing a belief but in what you advocate doing to/with those who hold it.

There is also a massive distinction to be drawn between attacking a belief and attacking the believer.

Dasa advocates hatred of and violence to those who disagree with him, specifically but not exclusively those
who follow Islam.

THAT is what consistently earns him forum bans and deleted threads/posts. (I am assuming as I can't read the
moderators minds)

Free speech is not threatened by coming down heavily on hate speech.




*Faith used here to mean a "firm conviction of the truth of a statement held without evidence and/or despite any
and all evidence that contradicts it"


EDIT: I know there are other meanings of the word faith which is why I gave the meaning I was using in this post.
My argument doesn't necessarily apply to other meanings of the word which is why I made the distinction.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No the comparison does not represent a threat.

Stating that a god/set of beliefs/ect are bad doesn't say anything about what to do about it.

In the same way that improving humanities health and prosperity by improving the gene pool is
a good idea, doing it by the methods espoused and enacted by the Nazis and other 'eugenicists'
of the 20th c ...[text shortened]... without evidence and/or despite any
and all evidence that contradicts it"[/b]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrew 11:1 KJV)

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(Romans 10:17 KJV)